awards are made, which are very remarkable. "Then shall the King say
to them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the
kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was
hungry, and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was
a stranger, and ye took me in; naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick,
and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came to me. Then shall the
righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, and fed
thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger,
and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee
sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and
say to them, Verily I say to you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one
of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me" {68} (_vv._
84-40). What is chiefly noteworthy in these words is, that the Judge
identifies himself with suffering humanity, and accounts as "brethren"
even "the least" of those that suffer, having, when he "dwelt among
us," participated in the toils and afflictions to which sinful man is
subject (although "in him was no sin)," and submitted in the end to the
shame and pain of dying on the cross, although he had shown by his
miracles that he had power over death and all the ills of humanity. As
is written in Isaiah liii. 4, "He hath borne _our_ griefs and carried
_our_ sorrows." This the Son of God voluntarily took upon himself out
of love and compassion towards us, knowing that, by ordinance of his
Father, the Creator of spirits, "we must through many tribulations
enter into the kingdom of God" (Acts xiv. 22), and be made heirs of
immortality, and that consequently we had need of such assurance of
obtaining the appointed inheritance as that which is given by his
partaking with us of life, death, and resurrection (see what is said on
this part of the subject in p. 29). Besides this, the sympathy of
Jesus Christ with human suffering, which was also shown by his miracles
of healing, is specially a reason for giving _practical_ proof, by acts
of benevolence and mercy towards our fellow men, that we partake of the
same spirit. It is with reference to such _outward_ evidence of faith
and righteousness, that the decision of the Judge, given {69} in the
passage above quoted, is pronounced. It seems, too, from the questions
put to the Judge by the company of the righteous, and the answer they
received, that their acts of kindness and mercy, done in humility and
faith, were accepted by the Judge, out of his sympathy and community
with the sufferers, as done to himself, although the doers had not had
previous knowledge or expectation that their good deeds would be so
accepted.
The sentence pronounced on the unrighteous, and the reasons for it, are
thus stated in _vv._ 41-45: "Then shall he say also to them on the left
hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into the [oe]onian fire (_to pur to
aiônion_, i.e. the fire of judgment in the future _aiôn_) prepared for
the devil and his angels: for I was hungry, and ye gave me no meat; I
was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me
not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye
visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when
saw we thee hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in
prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them,
saying, Verily, I say to you, inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the
least of these, ye did it not to me." It should be noticed that the
terms of this award are the exact contraries of those of the award to
the righteous. On the one hand, the King says, "Come, ye blessed of my
Father, inherit {70} the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation
of the world;" on the other, he says, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into
the [oe]onian fire prepared for the devil and his angels;" and the
account of what the Judge further says to the unrighteous, and of what
they say to him, although somewhat briefer than that relating to the
righteous, is made up of exactly opposite particulars. On this
principle, since the decision respecting the righteous is pronounced on
the grounds of positive works of righteousness done in humility and
faith, that respecting the unrighteous has regard only to the
_omission_ to do such works through presumption and unbelief. The same
exhibition of opposite circumstances and qualities, and the same
principle of condemnation for sins of omission exclusively of those of
commission, are observable in the two other symbolic representations
contained in the same chapter--the parable of the ten virgins, and the
parable of the talents. In short, the general purport of the chapter
is to indicate, that in the sight of the righteous Judge sins of
omission, not less than sins of commission, demand condemnation and
punishment; the reasons for which appear to be that both kinds are
equally violations of the royal law, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself" (James ii. 8), and perfect obedience to this law is the
necessary foundation of a _common_ immortality.
It only remains now to speak of the final issue of {71} the judgment
stated thus in _v._ 46: "And these shall go away into eternal
punishment, but the righteous into external life." It must be admitted
that the first clause of this sentence, taken as it is usually taken,
expresses the perpetuity of evil, inasmuch as "punishment" is an evil.
But after this has been conceded, there is still something more to be
said on this doctrine. It is evident from the context that by "these"
is meant the ungodly just before spoken of, who, having shown, by their
neglecting to give proof of love towards their neighbours, that the
love of God is not in them (see 1 John iv. 20), are counted as enemies,
and as such must be punished. For there is no neutral position: all
who do not obey the commands of Christ are opposed to him, and all that
is opposed to him is destined to be brought under subjection. Further,
it is to be noticed that although the final decision is expressed
generally in accordance with the before-mentioned principle of
employing exactly opposite terms relatively to the righteous and the
wicked, here the opposite of "eternal life" is "eternal punishment,"
and not "eternal death," the latter expression being nowhere found in
Scripture. May it not hence be argued that, as among men the
punishment of the guilty has not for its purpose the infliction of pain
and penalty, but rather is the means employed to the end that laws may
be obeyed, so the end of divine punishment is for correction, and for
{72} giving effect to and establishing the law of universal
righteousness. If it should hence be inferred that the word "eternal"
is applied to future punishment with reference to that permanence of
_effect_ which, as has already been indicated (p. 65), is symbolically
represented by the perpetual ascent of "the smoke of torment," against
this inference it might reasonably be urged that "eternal" ought to be
taken in the same sense relatively to the "punishment" of the wicked,
as relatively to the "life" of the righteous, and eternity is here
predicated of the one just as of the other. Now, although this
reasoning appears to be irrefragable, the additional arguments from
Scripture which I am about to adduce will, I think, show that there
must be some other way of regarding the doctrine of future punishment,
which, although not inconsistent with that to which the foregoing
interpretation of Matt. xxv. 46 has conducted, differs from it either
as to point of view or comprehensiveness.
In the first place, it is to be observed that in our Lord's discourses
doctrine was very generally taught by parables and symbolic language,
which required to be interpreted in order that the abstract and
spiritual truths thereby conveyed might be understood. (This remark
applies to the whole of the passage, Matt. xxv. 31-46, brought under
review in the foregoing discussion.) In Mark iv. 34, it is said that
"without a parable he spake not to them," that is, {73} to the
multitude, and that "in private he explained all things to his
disciples." Being asked by the disciples, when he was preaching to a
great multitude assembled together on the sea-shore to hear him, why he
spake to them in parables, he answered, "Because it is given to you to
know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not
given. For whosoever hath, to him it shall be given, and he shall have
more abundance; but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away
even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables, because
seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they
understand" (Matt. xiii. 10-13). It is here affirmed that although
parables from their very character are expressed in terms which the use
of the senses renders intelligible, there are those who do not or will
not understand them, who for this reason, on the principle of not
giving to those who have not, are spoken to only in parables, so that
they continue in ignorance. As every effect or consequence implies the
antecedence of the _purpose_ of an agent, with respect to this
consequence we find it stated in Luke viii. 10, that our Lord expressly
addressed the disciples in these words: "Unto you it is given to know
the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest in parables, _that
seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand_." To a
selected few is granted the favour of being able to discern, _through
the objective sense_ of {74} parables, the interior signification
whereby mysteries of the kingdom of God are revealed, whilst from the
rest--the multitude--although the objective sense is the same to them
as to the others, the knowledge of the mysteries is withheld. This is
evidently a dispensation analogous to that according to which, as
Christ declared, "Many are called, but few are chosen" (Matt. xxii.
14). It is also in accordance with views expressed in a previous part
of this Essay respecting the distinction between "the elect" and the
rest of mankind.
It is further to be considered that the Lord promised the apostles that
after his departure from them, "the Holy Spirit would teach them all
things, and bring all things to their remembrance which he had said to
them" (John xiv. 26), and it may be assumed that after the Day of
Pentecost this promise was fulfilled, and that they were then
enlightened to discern the spiritual meaning of his doctrine. In this
way it may be accounted for that while Christian doctrine rests
fundamentally on the words and deeds of Christ as recorded in the
Gospels, it is taught in the Acts of the Apostles and the apostolical
Epistles in terms of a more abstract character, which, in fact, may be
regarded as unfolding the spiritual import of the teaching, the life,
and the death of Jesus Christ. The apostle Paul, although he was not
one of the originally selected apostles, had special grace and {75}
power given him for understanding fully and teaching the doctrine of
Christ. Now, this apostle, so gifted with understanding and knowledge,
writes in his Epistle to the Romans: "By the obedience of one shall the
many be made righteous" (v. 19); the context evidently showing that the
"one" is Jesus Christ, and that "the many" are _all_ the sinful sons of
Adam. I have already adverted to this text (p. 19), and called
attention to the significance of the future tense, "shall be made
righteous." According to our argument, when they have been made
righteous, they are _saved_. Hence, quite consistently with this
passage in the Epistle to the Romans, St. Paul has said in his first
Epistle to Timothy (iv. 10), "We trust in the living God, who is the
Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe." If this
sentence had not contained the last clause, there might have been some
excuse for questioning whether St. Paul preached the doctrine of the
eventual salvation of all men; but inasmuch as he adds, "especially of
those that believe," it is as clear as words can make anything clear,
that he taught that all are saved in the sense in which he taught that
those who believe are saved. The reason for making the distinction
expressed by the word "especially" is, I think, sufficiently apparent
from the doctrine, previously maintained in this Essay (pp. 88-40),
that the elect righteous are raised up first, and partake already of
salvation, honour, {76} and glory, during a certain interval preceding
the resurrection of the rest of mankind.
Now, since all that are saved, as being at rest and in felicity, are
free from sin and evil, this teaching of St. Paul is directly opposed
to the doctrine of the perpetuity of evil which is usually inferred
(see p. 71) from the saying of our Lord in Matt. xxv. 46. Thus
apparently there is irreconcilable contradiction between the teaching
of Christ and the teaching of St. Paul on a most momentous subject.
Since, however, the same spirit of wisdom was in the apostle as in his
Lord, it is not possible that there can really be such contradiction;
and because, consequently, the seeming contradiction must be
attributable to our defect of knowledge, or inability, to interpret
rightly the allegorical teaching of Christ, we might do well, although
no solution of the difficulty should be at hand, to accept this gospel
of salvation, in the confidence that, as being declared by St. Paul in
plain terms, it must be true Christian doctrine.
I am not, however, prepared to grant that the solution of the
above-mentioned difficulty is not discoverable; and accordingly I make
bold to indicate a line of argument by which, as it seems to me, a
solution is attainable. The first step in this argument is to admit
the reality of that analogy between God's natural creation and His
spiritual creation which has already been taken into consideration (see
p. 14), {77} and to infer therefrom that the spiritual creation is
actually in progress towards a foreordained perfect consummation. For
the purpose of illustrating this view by way of contrast, I may mention
that I once heard a sermon in which the preacher, who was regarded in
his day as a leader of religious thought, advanced the theory that the
word "remedy" expressed the central idea of the divine scheme of
salvation. According to this theology, which looks backwards rather
than forwards, the prevalence of sin and mortality, and the need of a
remedy for the many ills and errors that beset humanity, were
contingent on Adam's transgression. It may be granted that this is so
far true, that sin and death entered into the world because Adam was
not made incapable of sinning. But this theory overlooks the
possibility of there being a _final_ cause for the actual facts of
humanity, and seems to be a substitution of _propter hoc_ for _post
hoc_. The analogy of the natural creation points to a different, and
apparently a juster, view of the divine [oe]conomy, according to which
the reign of sin and death in Adam and all his posterity is a necessary
part of a prearranged scheme, now actually in progress, which is
destined, by its completion hereafter, to make, not one man only, but a
countless multitude, incapable of sinning and meet for immortality. On
this point, however, after what has been already said (see p. 57),
there is no occasion to say {78} more here. I proceed, therefore, to
the next step, which is to indicate certain inferences that may be
drawn from the character of progressiveness which pertains at present
to the spiritual creation.
It may, in the first place, be asserted that "the law of opposites,"
referred to in pp. 69 and 70, is a necessary accompaniment of that
general law of progression. The author of the Book of Ecclesiasticus,
who certainly put on record many wise sayings, has thus stated the law
of opposites: "Good is set against evil, and life against death: so is
the sinner against the godly. So look upon all the works of the Most
High, and there are two and two, one against another" (xxxiii. 14, 15).
Now, evidently this duality will cease, and unity be universally
established, when, as argued in the preceding paragraph, the
predestined consummation is reached, and the purpose of the whole
creation, external and spiritual, is fulfilled. This doctrine of the
termination of evil appears to have been understood and proclaimed by
the writer of the fourth Book of Esdras, in which we meet with the
following emphatic declaration: "Take heaven and earth to witness; for
I have broken the evil in pieces, and created the good: for I live,
saith the Lord" (ii. 14). In the mean while, as being subject to
conditions of earth, and time, and space, we are also subject to this
law of duality and antagonism, so that we have no knowledge or
perception of anything of {79} which we do not also know the
_opposite_. For this reason it is not possible to make known the
conditions under which men are saved without at the same time stating
the conditions under which they are _not_ saved. This will account for
the _oppositeness_ and _parallelism_ of the statements in Matt. xxv.
46, concerning the consequences to the wicked and the righteous of
their respective deeds, as well as for many statements of like
character in other parts of Scripture. But this does not explain why
the punishment of the wicked is said to be "eternal." Relatively to
this question I submit the following considerations.
Recurring once more to the position, that the existing order of things
is part of a progressive scheme, the purpose of which is to create
immortal souls, it may, I think, be reasonably assumed that there is
nothing in human cognizance or experience, whether it be thought or
feeling, word or deed, which is not contributory in some manner to this
end. If a mechanist, after planning a machine for a certain purpose,
introduced in the execution of it parts which contributed nothing
towards effecting that purpose, would not this be considered to be an
imperfection? Such imperfection is wholly inadmissible in the
workmanship of an omniscient and omnipotent Creator. Accordingly,
since, as being conditioned by _time_, we are capable of entertaining
the thought that the punishment of the wicked in the world to come may
{80} be eternal, many, in fact, having professed their belief that so
it will be, we must conclude, on the above principle, that even this
thought is contributory towards the eventual bringing in of
immortality. But it will be asked, in what way? To this question we
may give the general answer, that as such thought is operative on human
action, and implies the existence of _time_, it must be reckoned as
part of the total of human thought and experience conditioned by time,
which was ordained from the beginning to be the means, whether in this
age or in the age to come (_aiôn ho mellôn_), of forming spirits for
immortality. Then, again, we have reason from Scripture to infer that
the immortal spirit is in effect "spiritual _body_" (1 Cor. xv. 44),
composed of functional parts or qualities constituting it such a whole
that it is adapted for communion with other spirit; in which case the
_temporal_ processes of creation above mentioned might be supposed to
be designed to give to immortal spirit a character appropriate to its
destiny. And we may, at least, be certain that Jesus Christ knew what
was required for accomplishing his Father's purpose of creating spirits
which, while retaining _individuality_ and _will_, would be incapable
of sinning, and that in his wisdom he employed such manner of teaching
as would either now or hereafter conduct to that end.
I take occasion to observe here, parenthetically, that whereas,
according to the above argument, the {81} word "eternal" (from
_[oe]etas_) is applicable to punishment because we can think of eternal
punishment by thinking of time, the word "endless" is not in the same
manner applicable, simply because it does not explicitly indicate
relation to _time_. The Greek equivalent of the English word
"everlasting," and of the Latin word "_sempiternus_," namely _aidios_
from _aei_, is used in Rom. i. 20, and in Jude 6, in the sense of
_aiônios_, and, as involving like the latter the conception of time, is
similarly applicable to future punishment. But besides "_eternal_
life," we have in Scripture "_indissoluble_ life" (_xôn akatalytos_,
Heb. vii. 16), the remarkable epithet _akatalytos_ not being
etymologically expressive of time, and therefore not wrongly, although
not strictly, translated by "endless" in the Authorized Version. No
such epithet is applied in Scripture to "punishment" or "torment."
(See more on this question in an Appendix to the Essay.)
Reasoning analogous to that employed above relative to the assertion in
Matt. xxv. 46, that the wicked "go away into eternal punishment," is
applicable to other declarations of like tenor in various portions of
Scripture. One of these, recorded in Matt. xxvi. 24 as having been
spoken by the Lord to the "_twelve_," demands special notice.
Translated literally according to the tenses of the Greek, this passage
is, "Woe to that man through whom the Son of man has been betrayed!
good was it for him, if that man was not {82} born." The translation
in the Authorized Version, "it had been good for that man if he had not
been born," may be taken to convey, regard being had to difference of
idiom, the true sense of the original. Exactly the same passage occurs
in Mark xiv. 21, where our translators have given, "good were it for
that man if he had never been born." Although this translation, as
containing the word "never," deviates still more than the other from
the literal rendering, it may be justified on the principle that the
declaration, in whatever form it be made, is one in which _time_ enters
as a necessary element, whereby alone it is within the reach of
thought. Accordingly, this saying of our Lord, regarded as having
relation to experience in the world to come, is in the same category as
his assertion of the eternity of future punishment, and would appear,
by applying the argument already expounded (p. 80) with respect to that
doctrine, to be in like manner contributory towards generating in the
spirit of man an incapability of sinning. It is farther to be taken
into account that these words were addressed by the Lord to his
_apostles_--to the elect of the elect--with particular reference to the
sin of _betraying_ the Son of man, which was exemplified by the outward
act of Judas, who also by his self-destruction exhibited the damnatory
power of the inward consciousness of such guilt. The exceeding
sinfulness of such apostasy as that which Judas, chosen to be {83} an
apostle, was guilty of, may be assigned as the reason that it was
denounced by our Lord in terms which do not appear to have been applied
to any other kind of "transgression" (compare Acts i. 17, 25).
In Heb. x. 26, 27, we are taught that "if we sin wilfully after that we
have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more
sacrifice for sins, but a certain looking for of judgment and fiery
indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." This is apostasy not
of the same degree and character as that of a chosen apostle, but still
is such that "the called" are not exempt from falling into it, as is
clearly implied by the tenor of this passage. To those who thus fall
and do not repent, is reserved "the fiery indignation" (_pyros zylos_),
which is destined hereafter to devour the adversaries. It may be
presumed that the adversaries thus specially referred to are those of
whom it is said in Rev. xx. 9, that having been deceived by Satan,
after their resurrection at the end of the thousand years, and gathered
together in warfare against the beloved city, they were _devoured by
fire_ from God out of heaven. Accordingly their destruction is
identical with the second death.
2 Peter ii. 20, 21, is a passage of like import to that just
considered. It is therein asserted of those who are overcome by the
pollutions of the world after having escaped them through the knowledge
of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, that "it had been {84} better for
them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have
known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them." This
may be taken to signify that the punishment in the day of judgment
consequent upon sin and error arising out of ignorance, will be "more
tolerable" than that which will be inflicted on those who have
knowingly apostatized from the way of truth.
What is said in Matt. xviii. 6, "Whoso shall offend one of these little
ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were
hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the
sea," may be accounted for on the principle that any form of death of
which the body is susceptible in this world is rather to be endured,
and less to be feared, than the punishment which, through the judgment
in the world to come, awaits the enemies of Christ who put a
stumbling-block in the way of them that humble themselves as little
children and believe on him.